packsaddle

Are you saying that public health is not a legitimate function of government? I suppose that, yes, this could be turned over to the private sector. Actually it is an interesting option, one that would efficiently apply Darwinian principles to our society. So what parts of NIH or CDC would you shut down? Any others?

Brent, Your reasoning applies equally to your own claim. Because the so-called 'cures' have not been developed, there is no evidence either way. Lack of evidence is simply that. And ignorance is simply that. It is not a reason to believe anything, positive or negative. However, the knowledge we have is of past developments in science, biology in this case - and that evidence is very supportive of the prediction that future research will discover new therapies, perhaps 'cures'. Restated, if past experience can be used as a future predictor, then the technological advances hoped for by SR540Beaver, Gern, and others are more likely than not. There is good reason to expect new medical advances from stem cell research. We simply can't predict when they will be discovered or necessarily what they will be. What we CAN predict with 100% accuracy is that if the research is not pursued, new discoveries are less likely to be found. And if the research is impeded, they may be found - but more slowly, and more people will have suffered than was necessary. As I explained previously, if your line of reasoning had prevailed years ago, it would have impeded, for example, the development of new and better sources of insulin. (or a number of vaccines, etc.) In a broader perspective your line of reasoning applies to every form of exploration ever supported by public funds. In every case in which we used tax dollars to explore the unknown I suspect each one of those efforts had similar detractors. If I were to couch your objection in the form of a null hypothesis, "stem cell research will produce no new cures", the logical alternative hypothesis would require a research effort to test it. As you admit, the research will be done by someone. The most you can do with your line of reasoning is to slow it down...a result unlikely to find favor among those of us who would like to see those new therapies sooner rather than later. Your previous point about public funding for research is well-taken. The logical extreme for that line of reasoning is to have no public funding of any kind of research. This would include everything: medical, agricultural, communications, engineering, defense, etc. If your reasoning is sound, none of this should be funded with tax dollars. But THAT is a political question, not a scientific one. We'll all determine that at the polls.

Gern, again I agree. My solo treks are under the assumption that all risk is born by me alone. At my age, post reproductive with kids out of the nest, it won't matter to many people if I never show up again. On occasion I've gone days off trail in the western backcountry. I know the risk and I'll take the consequences if they ever come. However, for a young person with a whole future ahead, I advise error on the side of safety. And stay in good shape so that when you get to my age, you can let it all hang out. Of course, by that time gravity is going to do that to you anyway! Edited part: REALLY big OOOPS on this one! ;)(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Beav, I feel the same empathy for all people in your or similar situations. At one time, there was strong resistance to the development of molecular genetics back when it was in its infancy. Some of this resistance lingers in the form of opposition to genetically modified food products. My point in mentioning this is that the insulin that you and so many others use today was, at one time, extracted from animals. It was an expensive process and, importantly, it was not identical to human insulin - and back then the adverse effects you describe happened with greater frequency and at an earlier age. Depending on your age and the date that you began your treatment, this might have affected you as well. However with the development of molecular genetic technology, the human gene for insulin was spliced into microbes that were cultivated in mass quantities. Biotech now produces biosynthetic insulin that is identical to the real McCoy, and in quantities that has cut costs and saved or prolonged lives. At one time, those who were opposed to the development of this technology argued that claims of potential benefits were purely speculative. The same arguments are made today about stem cell research. These arguments were and are a deception and grounded only in ignorance. The pattern is clear enough by now that I hope most of us can see it. Sadly, the oval office, well.....you know.

I see the point that Hunt was attempting to make. It is an apparent contradiction of thought and action similar to an apparent contradiction represented by fundamentalists who oppose abortion, but at the same time support the death penalty. Rooster7, I think, was able to provide in the past the scriptural support for the answer to this. But to address Hunts idea... In one of the simplest exercises of mathematical game theory, the optimal solution is called, 'tit for tat'. This can be recognized in the 'Golden Rule' and so many other similarly-derived ethics. But in the game, the important distinction is that whoever has the first opportunity to act can make one of two choices: the first choice is an action that will give a marginal and diminishing advantage, the margin of which is wiped out in time. The alternative choice is to act in the manner in which you hope the opponent will choose. This achieves instant and permanent parity (fairness) as long as this ethic is followed by the gaming parties. This approach was applied to torture policy in the past. Yes, torture may produce misinformation. But torture must also be avoided because WE don't want to be tortured. There is nothing positive about it. And if the other side DOES torture, how does it do us honor if we then lower ourselves by adopting THEIR code of morality? The pragmatist argues essentially, 'tit for tat' while unconscious of the consequences. Any questionable advantage either side might gain by torture will be wiped out in time and what are we left with in the end?....the torture. But when the other side does it, they DON'T do it simply for information. They gain no real tactical advantage by employing torture, they just cause harm and destroy lives. They do it simply to hurt people, simply for the pleasure and satisfaction they derive from it. Is THAT what we want to be like? But we did it anyway, didn't we? The stem cell issue really is different. The thing about stem cell research is that questions regarding for example, "when does life begin?" are diversions from the current reality. The reality is that, as already mentioned, embryos are already destroyed and we as a society condone this. There is no hand-wringing and widespread re-examination of this practice. It is there and we simply ignore it, the same as we do now for the once-controversial many technologies of molecular genetics and biology. And the reality is that with the new approach mentioned in previous threads, the embryos are not harmed by the development of stem cell lines. Unfortunately the final reality is that this is not an issue based in knowledge or understanding but rather driven by political ideology that is based in ignorance or worse. But as in game theory, the marginal advantage to those who stand in the way of stem cell research will diminish in time. Unfortunately for persons like SR540Beaver and Gern's son, that time will be unnecessarily long....because of the ideology. And that, to me, is worse than cruel. It is evil.

This was all covered in a previous thread: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=139649 To recap: During in vitro fertilization it is now common to remove a cell from the developing embryo for the purpose of genetic testing. Presumably, if a defect is found the embryo does not continue. However, new research has shown that if the cell that has been removed for genetic testing is allowed to grow in culture, then some of the resulting cells can be used for stem cell research and the rest for the genetic testing. Note that this merely piggybacks the stem cell research on existing manipulations to the embryos, manipulations that will continue regardless. And needless to say, it eliminates the problem of embryo destruction during development of stem cell lines (which had been the reason for administration opposition in the past). A new attempt was subsequently made to create legislation to fund embryonic stem cell research employing this approach. The administration opposed it again, without articulating clear reasons...they simply opposed it.

Gern, from the perspective of one who has spent many weeks of solo backpacking in the Yellowstone backcountry over the years, I understand completely. It is such wonderful solitude.

Barry, if you can't name your government agency, could you share with us the type of research your agency funds? I think everyone would like to know if your characterization of scientists as unaccountable freeloaders applies generally or merely to the fields funded by your agency. Gonzo1, the administration refused to support embryonic stem cell research that DOES NOT kill the embryo. As Trevorum implies, their decision is beyond hypocritical, it is unconscionable. Edited part: OK, the Bears are good, but I'm thinking more in terms of the Braves (I know...wrong season).(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Anything First Class or beyond is a perfectly honorable way to finish scouting as a boy and any boy who lasts more than a year or so will make First Class. After that, the lust for merit badges takes over. I tell all the parents that finishing at Star or Life is cause for celebration, not shame, because a boy did achieve something significant. AND if he has any regrets about not making Eagle, it is a powerful lesson about seeking a goal and failing, that didn't actually hurt anything...perhaps a better lesson than being pushed through it and achieving an empty award with little personal value or significance. I tell the boys and the parents that after Life, I leave further advancement to the boy. I help if asked, but I do not push or cajole. If they really want it, they will go for it. I say these things because I do not want anyone who was a scout but didn't make Eagle somehow to be stigmatized because of that fact. I am the only leader in this unit to have made Eagle as a boy and aside from a little notoriety, it hasn't made me a better leader than the others by one bit. Nor a better person. Just a little prettier in uniform

According to: http://www.troop97.net/bsaeagle.htm it occurred in 1965. But according to: http://www.eaglescout.org/history/1963_Rev.html the change to include a service project occurred in 1963, moments AFTER I earned mine under the previous requirements.

Heh, heh, sounds like you already discovered some of the basics the hard way...and survived. That's good. The previous lists and advice are all good (although if I added up all the weight that SSScout mentioned it would need to be spread out over quite a number of persons). I would add that the best tool you have for safety and all the rest is a clear mind. That is achieved by being prepared (using the lists already mentioned) and by planning carefully (this means getting started on time and planning for an appropriate distance). Gern mentioned technology. I'd leave the gps home. It is great at telling you where you are but terrible at figuring out how to get to another destination. It is a tool that is suited for water navigation but, at least on the mountain terrain around here, it is almost worthless. A compass, on the other hand, and the knowledge of how to use it..... A cell phone might be a useful emergency tool IF you can find a signal. Otherwise it is dead weight. If you are only going to travel less than 15 miles or so in a day trip, and if you have followed Gern's advice and left an intinerary, you can probably leave the cell phone in the car. Around here, for a day hike, clothing is mostly a consideration in the winter - to avoid hypothermia. I'd pack matches, etc., as SSScout mentioned, to start an emergency fire and I'd add to the list, perhaps, a water filter in case your supply runs low. Edited part: I think we were typing at the same time so I'll add a couple of things. Toccoa is in my neck of the woods (and Brent's and Gonzo1's for that matter) and I know it well. There are so many other possibilities for hiking around Toccoa that I couldn't begin to list them here. I'll PM you and we can discuss this some more. I may take you up on your offer P.S. the rain has been nice but the front moving in is going to cool things off. Great backpacking weather! Gotta go....(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

An idea, I think, that is worth discussion today. However, I see the risk that adults who are in scouting just for their own personal gratification would be enabled by this, thus becoming a negative for the boys. I'd keep it like it is. Adults that didn't earn it by 18 will just have to live with it.

OK, I give up.

I guess Rumsfeld has become yesterday's news but this new fiber in this thread is more interesting anyway. It would be interesting to know if after passing the first minimum wage, there actually was an attributable decline in poverty. As opposed, say, to the first compulsory education, or the first comprehensive public health programs. Poverty, it seems to me, is related to many factors and because we tend to use income as a simple metric to define it, we then think that by simply manipulating the metric we can affect poverty. But really, isn't this really just treating symptoms? I have mixed feelings on the subject. But I am willing to ask the question. It is clear that compulsory education benefits everyone and society in general. Same for public health programs like childhood innoculations and the various functions of the CDC. But I am unconvinced that merely by manipulating the bottom of the pay scale, we can directly affect something as complex as poverty. At the same time, I see the 'fend for yourself' approach to have real negatives for everyone and society in general. Failure to successfully fend for oneself or one's family can lead to poverty - manifested by such things as homelessness, lack of access to education, disenfranchisement, increased frequency of disease, increased crime, and on and on. When this includes large numbers of people with children the effect lasts for generations. As Fuzzy noted, we devote public funds to diminish some of the things I listed. So it comes back to money. As Rush says, it's all about money. So, is it better to pay the money directly to the individuals in the form of a minimum wage? Or to pay the money in the form of government services for the impoverished? Or do we just let them fend for themselves? If someone can articulate another option I'd be interested in reading it.

Thanks Gonzo1 and Brent, interesting, seems to make sense. If we gradually did away with the minimum wage, how would that work in terms of its effect on the factors you mention? The reason I ask is that I sense a dichotomy. Your reasoning seems to lead to a conclusion that there should be no minimum wage. Yet, there must have been some rationale for the minimum wage in the first place. I could be wrong but following that assumption, when would we violate that original rationale, whatever it was? This is something about our economy that I have always found a bit confusing.

Looking at it from approximately the same place, I can tell you....40 is old. I am a lot older. It's ugly but it had to be told.

I too, have been there and done that. Our troop was down to just a few loyal boys. The CO was not supportive of the troop and the DE was bent on starting yet another troop to compete for recruits. I was determined not to let these few boys down so we kept it alive. I wish I had known then what I know now. In our case, the DC and all the upper-echelon volunteers are equivalent to 'bumps' on a boar hog. I know of their existence and they are always there with a hand out for more donations. To the troop they are slightly less significant than the existence of Halleys comet. They seem to like to have a title and then do absolutely nothing other than to collect accolades for doing nothing. A DE is rated (therefore paid) partly based on numbers. If a unit dies he gets a black mark. If he raises numbers he gets a good mark. Play this card. If no one else is willing to help, consider throwing in the towel and moving memberships to another troop. But first, make it clear to those who are supposed to be supportive that this is going to happen and that their neglect is one of the reasons. This way they can't claim ignorance. Make and keep a paper trail. In our case, I met with church leaders and shamed them in front of a large group of people. I suggested the parable of the fig tree - they had one year to get behind the troop or it would die. They got the message. More adults from the CO got involved. A large group of cubs from our CO who had been in a competing pack 'defected' back to us and the troop has been on the way up ever since. The DE was a know-nothing idiot and has since gone on to ruin some other organization. The DE that replaced him is, at least, benign - no help but at least not actively seeking our demise. The bottom line is: don't expect much help from anyone. Don't get too personally involved and 'be prepared' to move on to greener pastures if necessary - the boys are worth it. Good luck

OK, this minimum-wage thing is puzzling...at least I'm not clear in my mind how having a minimum wage causes poverty. Could someone please explain? Would there be less poverty if there was no minimum wage? How would that work?

I have to admit it is difficult for me to set aside my thoughts that currently apply to Boy Scouts and return to my mindset back when I was a cubmaster. But as much as I tend to agree with Beavah and Gonzo1, I think the distinction is in supervision. When I was cubmaster, we never had an incident that came even close to anything like this. The boys often used knives and other potentially dangerous, sharp instruments. We did all kinds of things as a pack and in the dens and remembering those times now makes me long for those days again, I really liked the cubs and miss them a lot. There were almost no times when adult supervision was not applied to the cubs. When we built pinewood derby cars, the boys used knives, chisels, saws, power drills, all kinds of tools and it was done with one-on-one supervision, safely. We almost never had an injury worse than a nick or scratch. As a pack, we cut and made hiking staffs using saws and pocketknives, again with close supervision. We had really great times allowing the boys to grow in their responsible use of potentially dangerous tools. In the case cited originally, and here I agree with eamonn, a large number of boys were unsupervised and, as I would have done when I was that young if I spotted those air potatoes, they started throwing things at each other. The rest of the story is a completely predictable outcome....with poor supervision. Yes, the boy made a poor decision pulling the knife. He is still early in the development of his ability to make good personal decisions, there is plenty of time for him to improve. He should lose the knife. He should be punished in an appropriate manner. The boys throwing the air potatoes should also be addressed in a proper manner. But the solution that I see to the situation is not simply punishing the knife-wielder, but rather getting the adults to take their supervisory responsibilities seriously and prevent these situations in the first place. IMHO

I agree with Beavah and Ed. This is wrong and needs to be aggressively addressed all the way to the top if necessary.

As much as I sympathize with the thoughts of Trevorum and others, I must share Gonzo1's skepticism at this time. There is nothing I have heard or read that the Democrats have offered in the way of innovation. And for now at least, words about bipartisanship just fall flat. We heard those words in 2000 to no effect. The message that was sent in this most recent election was to both parties, not just the administration. If the Democrats don't heed the message, their tenure will be short. I'll wait for them to put their actions where their mouths are. Let's see some real teamwork for a change and save our congratulations for positive results. As for Rumsfeld, let him wither to oblivion in a bitter autumn of his own making. He can spend time writing his memoirs, trying to change history and the way he will be viewed.

Gonzo1, I have great faith in the military. I think if decisions on Iraq had been purely military decisions, we'd be in a very different situation now. The officers to whom I used to report were very down-to-earth and they appreciated the truth even if it was bad news. I had great confidence in that system. But it didn't work that way for Iraq, to my regret. Brent, I didn't need to know the secrets. All I would have liked to know was that there was uncertainty about the information and that the uncertainty was carefully being considered. I would have expressed my opinion as I have on numerous other issues. I saw no such process. I always am aware that I can be wrong about things but so far, no one has provided evidence to the contrary. The one thing that does shake my confidence on this is what must have been going through Colin Powell's mind. What must he be thinking now? I can't imagine but according to his own account, he has many regrets. Your cynicism is unimportant to me personally, but you must understand that it diminishes your ability to communicate ideas effectively, assuming that is your intent. I am willing to engage but I suspect there are others whose ideas have merit that simply don't contribute because it is so unpleasant. Me, I'm in the mud so often you wouldn't believe it, literally. So fire away. As for the nerves, no problem. As I think I said to someone else on the threads, there is nothing you (or the CIA for that matter) can say or do that comes even close to approaching the wrath of my wife. But that, I suppose, is another thread.

Brent, I am surprised that you seem to diminish the importance of individuals expressing their opinions or demanding something from their elected officials. I realize that mine is only one voice. And I guess I probably seem idealistic, because I do think that the democratic process works. In order for it to work, however, the people must be informed, otherwise they cannot make the best decisions in their letters and at the ballot box. Lies rob us of that information. Much in the same way that our collective voice just had a smack-down election, it is that same collective voice that was not given a chance in the decision to go to war...because the people were told a lie. It worked, I suppose. He got his way. You are welcome to poke fun at my naive approach and any person's honest desire to express their opinions to their representatives. I'm curious though. What caused you to be so cynical of anyone with whom you disagree? Do you approach the boys in this same manner?

Brent, perhaps you are correct about your ability to use or understand nuance. I am happy to keep trying to communicate to you though, if that will help. You got part of the answer to your question. My input to the decision would have been to demand this information from my representatives. And to express my informed opinion directly to the president. His claim for there to be no doubt about WMD left no room for such queries. No doubt is absolute. Doubt opens all the possibilities. I think he was aware of this and wanted to minimize the chance that his decision would be questioned or worse, resisted rather than supported by Congress. He did this. I suspect that if this was a parliamentary system, he would be facing the same fate as Tony Blair right now. Too late, unfortunately, for those thousands of lost lives.

In the spirit of George Bush, I can answer this with one word, 'Venture Crew'.